Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

the4thdimension writes "In a story that may bring out the 'duh' in you, CNN has a story about how anonymous anger is rampant on the Internet. Citing various reasons, it attempts to explain why sites like MyBiggestComplaint and Just Rage exist and why anger via the web seems to be everywhere. Various reasons include: anonymity, lack of rules, and lack of immediate consequences. Whatever the reason, they describe that online anger has resulted in real-life violence and suggest methods for parents and teens to cope with e-aggression and to learn to be aware of it." I can't figure out what makes me angrier: my habit of anonymously trolling web forums, or my video game playing.

Perhaps all this a nonny mouse anger arises from the mile long EULAs that we are supposed to read (but don't) ((because we'd start rioting if we were forced to)).

At the end of these sublimely irritating EULA's is an "I Accept" button.

However, nobody, but nobody, clicks on an "I Accept" button thinking "I truly accept, understand and welcome these words of wisdom which in exchange for a paltry sum of money, have made my life much better".

Universally, on clicking on "I Accept" around the 'net the one silent, but LOUD thought occurs, which is, as the parent so aptly expressed, "FUCK YOU!"

That is not really true. The reality as internet usage spread is, more violent, immature and angry people are using. These people are already violent and will if they feel insulted in the normal interpersonal public space, lash act and attempt to brutalise and dominate those who they feel have insulted them.

So these same violent individuals gain access to the internet and whom do they interact with, why the very people who they would normally bully if they met them out on the street or in any other public

You swine. You vulgar little maggot. You worthless bag of filth. As we say in Texas, you couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions printed on the heel. You are a canker, an open wound. I would rather kiss a lawyer than be seen with you. You took your last vacation in the Islets of Langerhans.

You're a putrescent mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk,
a cad, and weasel. I take that back; you are a festering pustule on an weasel's rump. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a stench, a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon.

You are a squeaking rat, a mistake of nature and a heavy-metal bagpipe player. You were not born. You were hatched into an unwilling world that rejects the likes of you. You didn't crawl
out of a normal egg, either, but rather a mutant maggot egg rejected by an evil scientist as being below his low standards.
You are jetsam who dreams of becoming flotsam. You won't make it. Your alleged parents abandoned you at birth and then died of shame in recognition of what they had done to an unsuspecting world. They were a bit late.

I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf
at the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut.
Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing.
You are a weed, a fungus, the dregs of this earth. You are a technicolor yawn. And did I mention that you smell?

Try to edit your responses of unnecessary material before attempting to impress us with your insight. The evidence that you are a
nincompoop will still be available to readers, but they will be able to access it ever so much more rapidly.

You are a thick-headed trog. I have seen skeet with more sense than you have. You are a few bricks short of a full load, a few cards short of a full deck, a few bytes short of a core dump, and
a few chromosomes short of a full human. Worse than that, you top-post.

You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid, nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an
ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even sheep won't have sex with you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost
in a land that reality forgot. You are not ANSI compliant. You have a couple of address lines shorted together. You should be promoted to Engineering Manager.

Do you really expect your delusional and incoherent ramblings to
be read? Everyone plonked you long ago. Do you fantasize that your tantrums and conniption fits could possibly be worth the $0.000000001 worth of electricity used to send them? Your life is
one big W.O.M.B.A.T. and your future doesn't look promising either.
We need to trace your bloodline and terminate all siblings and cousins in order to cleanse humanity of your polluted genes.
The good news is that no normal human would ever mate with you, so we won't have to go into the sewers in search of your git.

You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living
emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a loathsome disease, a drooling inbred cross-eyed toesucker. You make Quakers shout and strike Pentecostals silent. You have a version 1.0 mind in a version 6.04 world. Your mother had to tie a pork chop around your neck just to get your dog to play with you. You think
that http://www.guymacon.com/insult.txt [guymacon.com] is the name of a rock band.
You believe that P.D.Q. Bach is the greatest composer who ever lived. You would rather read L. Ron Hubbard than Larry Niven. Hee-Haw is too deep for you. You would watch test patterns all day if the other inmates would let you.

On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality
of wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted.
Spammers look down on you. Phone sex operators hang up on you.
Telemarketers refuse to be seen in public with you. You are the source of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and sorrow wherever
you go. May you choke on your own foolish opinions.

You are so clueless that if we stripped you naked, soaked you in clue musk, and dropped you into a field full of horny clues, You still would not have a clue. If you were a movie you would be
a double feature; _Battlefield_Earth_ and _Moron_Movies_II_.

You are a fiend and a sniveling coward, and you have bad breath.
You are the unholy spawn of a bandy-legged hobo and a syphilitic camel. You wear strangely mismatched clothing with oddly placed
stains. You are degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just knowing that you exist. I despise everything about you, and I wish you would go away.

It is hard to believe how incredibly stupid you are. Stupid as a stone that the other stones make fun of. Stupid so stupid that you have traveled far beyond stupid as we know it and into a new dimension of stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid cubed.
Trans-stupid stupid. Stupid collapsed to a singularity where even the stupons have collapsed into Stuponium. Stupid so dense that no intelligence can escape. Singularity stupid.
Blazing hot summer day on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one minute than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. This has to be a troll. It cannot be possible that anything in our universe can really be this stupid. This is a primordial fragment from the original big stupid bang.
A pure extract of stupid with absolute stupid purity. Stupid beyond the laws of nature. I must apologize. I can't go on. This is my epiphany of stupid. After this experience, you may not hear from me for a while. I don't think that I can summon the strength left to mock your moronic opinions and malformed comments about boring trivia or your other drivel. Duh.

The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I have snipped away most of your of what you wrote, because, well...
it didn't really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative flame was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults among a load of babbling was hardly effective...
Maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us "normal" people take for granted that
everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this world who find these things more difficult. If I had known, that this was your case then I would have never read your post. It just wouldn't have been "right". Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the
best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you.

Asynchronous anger is something different altogether, although I think you have to be married to experience.

Your spouse is always angry about something you did in the past or are about to do in the future. Theoretically they can be mad at you for what you are doing right now, but I think in practice there isn't enough room for that, so it gets shoved into some kind of complex priority queue.

If it makes you feel any better, I'd be really anonymously pissed off if my name was Rik Sweeney too. If you get married, take your wife's name. Try to look for a woman named Powers. Yeah. Rik Powers. That'd be cool.

Regardless of how extreme some people respond to some parts of anger, this is a pretty positive thing. I'd rather have someone rant about something online than go out and live out the murder they wished upon someone./stabbity

I'd rather have someone rant about something online than go out and live out the murder they wished upon someone.

Why in the world would you think that these are mutually exclusive alternatives?

The "steam boiler" model of pop psychology has long been proven to be incorrect. Acting and speaking do not relieve pressure -- or at least very much pressure. Instead human emotions tend to follow feedback loops. Acting and speaking angrily lead to thinking angrily, which lead to further angry actions and speech.

The word used by psychologists for this feedback phenomenon is "refractory". Anger is a refractory state precisely because angry thoughts and actions lead to further angry thoughts and actions. It is not relief that puts an end to it, it's fatigue.

Look around at people who act or speak out their anger and those who try to moderate their anger. Who stays angry the longest? The next time you get angry, try to master that anger by thinking objective thoughts. Do you stay angry longer or less long?

No doubt on this one, as it stands I have a bit of a temper; I've noticed that throughout the course of the day, if someone does something stupid or assinine that really gets under my skin (I'm in IT) it'll tend to cook and the one tiny thing and I'll go off the handle. Not really a great habit to have...

Yeah, well, but people need to vent. It might not be "steam boiler", but we have that need anyway.

Maybe it has to do with the fact that there might be people agreeing with you. If you're pissed off about something and speak about it openly, you might get feedback from other people with similar feeling and while that MIGHT also leed to you getting more aggressive with the positive feedback, it might also show you that you're not ALONE in being pissed off, which is a very positive and anger-releasing feelin

Yeah, but I remember reading about a recent study that showed that people had something like a finite amount of self control. Like if you were put in a position of having to use willpower to keep yourself from doing something, you'd be more likely to succumb to your impulses if you'd been exercising your willpower on something else directly before.

Now I think the study was regarding addictive behavior specifically (I'm not going to actually go looking for the news story I read about it), but I think it explains why people are inclined to believe the "steam boiler" model. It may not be that letting out anger lessens the amount of anger you have, but rather that relaxing your will and succumbing to your anger allows you well of willpower to recharge a bit, therefore allowing you to reassert a level of self-control that wouldn't otherwise be available.

If that model is right, then it may be that the best solution is to work on removing the source of the anger, but that the second-best thing to do is still to "blow off steam" in healthier ways that allow you to maintain control. In other words, "bottling it up" might still result in an explosion, even if the "steam boiler" model is incorrect.

I think you are right, in that removing the source of anger is important. That, after all, is the point of anger, isn't it? Except that in so many situations you can't remove the source of anger by being angry. That's civilization for you: you can't haul of and smack somebody you disagree with into submission.

I agree that if continually provoked to anger (or tempted to do something you are addicted to), you'll end up giving in. But getting angry (unless you can remove the source of anger that way) is no more useful than getting drunk to relieve your alcoholism.

I remember someone saying (maybe it's a famous quote?) something like, "Being angery is like taking poison and hoping the other guy dies." Or maybe it was hate instead of anger or something, but the basic idea is that when you are angry at someone, sometimes your anger is hurting you more than it hurts them.

I think anger and fear are useful emotions, but sometimes our reactions to them are not useful. It may be that you could argue the same thing about emotions like love and confidence. You can try too hard to hold on to the things you love, and you can get yourself into trouble by being over-confident, for example.

I may be getting too philosophical here. I guess I'm just saying that there are things that you should get angry about, and so I don't feel comfortable talking about it as a wholly negative emotion. I think the problem is when people don't know how to deal with that anger, especially when that anger is rooted in some other obscure emotional issue that results in misdirected anger.

And though it's true that acting angry may make you feel more angry, bottling it up or covering it with a smile won't necessarily help you deal with that anger. Ideally we'd all find the real source of our anger, deal with it properly, and figure out how to not get angry in the first place, but I wouldn't be on that utopia coming any time soon. In reality, sometimes finding an appropriate outlet may be helpful.

On the other hand, I'm not sure being an angry troll on the Internet is an appropriate outlet. It's probably better to go to the batting cage, or whatever kind of meditative physical exertion you prefer. (That's not something I actually do, but it seems like an obvious example: go hit shit with a baseball bat in a socially acceptable environment.)

The next time you get angry, try to master that anger by thinking objective thoughts.

I tried that. I started by thinking "oranges are orange", but then that led to the question "why apples aren't apple", and from there I went to "why are there two ways to spell 'grey' (gray) that are both colors, but two ways to spell 'red' (read) and only one of them is?" and that made me really mad.

And THEN I thought about the guy who created the word "orange" specifically so you couldn't write a poem about oranges an

(Actually, I suppose it's no more a stretch than using 'orange' in the first place).

The orange, the orange, a non-musical fruit,
Eat all you want, there will be no toot.
Drunk raw from the glass at each breakfast meal,
Not good with the cookies but great with some veal.
Add it to vodka and have a screwdriver,
A drink that will cost you more than a fiver.
But don't try to rhyme the name of the orange
'cause it will make your poem sound really odd and ruin the entire effect.

Various reasons include: anonymity, lack of rules, and lack of immediate consequences

Growing up, we are taught how to act "proper", and much of that involves keeping our emotions bottled up. Everyone gets frustrated with coworkers, on the road, etc. but rarely says anything for fear of consequences. Anger isn't any more rampant on the web than it is in real life, it is just expressed freely here.

So what is the article really suggesting? That we make rules to have everyone bottle up like normal? A lot of what people say on the net might be exaggerated, but I'm sure this is merely a symptom of finally being able to speak your mind, with the oppression of society lifted. It's like kids cussing a lot with friends because it's forbidden at home, then they grow up and suddenly they don't cuss at trivial things anymore, because they're free to do it.

It's possible to think that something on the internet is unfair, untrue, irresponsible, or whatever other characteristic one might get angry at, and still not get angry at it. Even if you're quick to get angry, it's hard to do if you're half asleep, for example. That proves that you don't HAVE to feel angry, but can (at least under some circumstances) choose a different response.

In other words, it's simply not true that "not getting angry" HAS to mean "not feeling anything" or "suppressing what you really f

I mean, I've gone from Excellent to Bad Karma in three days of raging on slashdot, and were I not on the verge of getting kicked off, I could go on raging for three days more and go for the mystical Evil rating.

Whatever the reason, they describe that online anger has resulted in real-life violence

Of course I didn't RTFA, but I have to wonder, to what extent would these people be angry about whatever they did anyway? I tend to get impatient/grumpy/angry in many situations, regardless of whether it's online or offline (in lines at the bank, stores, etc.). Yeah, it's a bit easier to vent online sometimes, in IM thread, some forums, and so on, but I've vented in public and with friends/colleagues offline for years, well before the world of 'online'.

Perhaps in a way its better than people do this online and stay away from other people in the real world to avoid physical harm to themselves and others.

Yes, but the difference is, if you vent in public with friends or coworkers, there's no trace of it left behind, except only vaguely in your memories, which are difficult to search and compile into a nice report.

This reminds me of Lord of the Flies. The masks make the demons feel like they can act without consequence.

Personally I think it's good for our psyches to take some form of abuse as long as we have a strong coping mechanism, and a strategy to deal with it. Truth be told, flies that are the dirtiest when they are young actually live the longest. Clean flies die quickly. So what I'm saying is that rampant nerd rage is a good thing because people get stuff off their chest, and as long as people understand how to deal with internet rage, then they can actually become mentally stronger from being entangled in it. Reminds me of the Hellmouth stories too, and how that whole discussion was such a healing power for so many.

But it's sad we have to deal with such powerful demons, and that demons are so contagious.

Not since the patch.:-( The buff was considered OP because it would proc passively when your HP dropped below 20%. They have since moved it to a Troll racial ability and made it so it can be cast at any time. But they only recieve the full benefit of the buff if they are badly damaged. Fortunately it's got a long cooldown so it can't be spammed.

Good. There is a lot to be angry about, and people have been far too sheep-like for far too long.

Here's a fitting response to this article from the fictional Howard Beale:

I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's worth; banks are going bust; shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter; punks are running wild in the street, and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it.

We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat. And we sit watching our TVs while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be!

We all know things are bad -- worse than bad -- they're crazy.

It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out any more. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we're living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, "Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials, and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone."

Well, I'm not going to leave you alone.

I want you to get mad!

I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot. I don't want you to write to your Congressman, because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street.

All I know is that first, you've got to get mad.

You've gotta say, "I'm a human being, goddammit! My life has value!"

So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window, open it, and stick your head out and yell,

Bitching and moaning is a worldwide pass-time. It's even easier to do when you won't get dunned for having done so, hence anonymity as a hallmark of the Internet. That and surfing to places where you don't want anyone to know it's really you.

In a world that's vastly more sophisticated than it once was, many have become terrible at getting rid of their stress. The need to vent and be heard is primal, and at least in the USA where I live, democracy isn't very satisfying in this regard with just two viable pol

You're right. But, the first thing they do is, they express their anger as anonymously as they can, to find out if they are alone, because they know if they are alone, they cannot act effectively.

If they are not alone, they will come to see this fact. Together.

Then, after they realize they are not alone, one person will stand up and say "My name is Joe Crazy. I am not going to take this anymore. Who is with me?"

And THIS is when they will start cleaning up their society.

And when they finally do, it will be gloriously violent, as those who have been exploiting the rule of law to oppress their fellow man are hoisted by their own petard.

They will be hoisted by the masses who finally realize that they do not wish to live in an oppressive, efficient society based on the rule of law with the faint hope that they might one day get to be Dictator Bush, but just want to co-operate, take care of their needs and spend the rest of their time enjoying their life.

That is an empty opinion, an expression of your distaste for violence and your desire to redefine words that might elevate it to a virtue.

I will allow that violence is occasionally necessary. That does not make it glorious. Collecting the town's rubbish is necessary. Unblocking the sewers is necessary. Violence is to be classed alongside those: it is something that is inherently messy, ugly and often downright disgusting, but which needs to be done.

I will allow that violence is occasionally necessary. That does not make it glorious. Collecting the town's rubbish is necessary. Unblocking the sewers is necessary. Violence is to be classed alongside those: it is something that is inherently messy, ugly and often downright disgusting, but which needs to be done.

For myself I'm with Billy Cassidy on this one: the ones who go on about blood sacrifices and glory and beauty in fighting are the ones yeh fuckin' shoot first.

When a man is in fear of his life, fighting in the service of those who cannot defend themselves, it is glorious regardless of how ugly it is. Not because he overcame his enemy, but because he overcame his fear and made a sacrifice of himself.

The sole and entire purpose of violence is to overcome an enemy. There is no other excuse for it. To glorify a courageous sacrifice, separately from any contribution it may make to overall victory, is to encourage entirely futile waste of life, and is to my mind who

No one need answer your agenda. We do so in the quest for communications and to seek common ground. We don't whip out weapons and start shooting.

There is only rarely justification for violence of any kind. The Bush administration has abused this in the quest of fear-mongering. My long dead ancestors fought in Virginia, then years later at Antietam, Gettysburg, and so on. Some of them were caucasian.

When I got my draft card, I burned it. I'd do it again. Vietnam wasn't justified, nor was Iraq War I or II. Capturing the madmen of 9/11 is justified; they must be brought to justice, and they so far have escaped, except perhaps one.

In the interim, over 450,000 Iraqi fathers, sons, brothers, uncles, and mothers, aunts, children have been killed because of Dick Cheney's ego, and George Bush's unwitting aid to the enemy. Yes, Saddam Hussein was horrible. But then, so has been the violence of Tutsis against Hutu, the red fields of Cambodia, and so many other horrible places.

You stop violence one situation at a time. It can be done. There is no justification for taking the life of another except in self-defense. Only animals believe otherwise, not humans that can respect feelings, or choose to ignore seeming insult.

You see, there are those of us that believe that unless directly challenged, violence is unnecessary. Part of this is the fact that we have a problem as a species with violence that dates back to a time when it was all we had to defend ourselves and engender discipline. Civility requires we examine alternates, or we all succumb to murderous and violent tendencies.

Diplomacy in various forms can work. Appeasement isn't necessarily good diplomacy. That's what Chamberlin did before WWII, where others of my ance

It's interesting that you rate anarchy higher than order, or "efficient society". The rule of law and order prevent the anarchy that would, in the end, destroy everyone and everything.

Yes, there are a bunch of problems with society. But these problems aren't because of the law and societal norms, it is because people are breaking the law and societal norms. You state "Dictator Bush"... yes, I suppose he's broken some of the law and that's why people are angry with him. I'm angry at McCain and Obama.

Yes, there are a bunch of problems with society. But these problems aren't because of the law and societal norms, it is because people are breaking the law and societal norms.

Quite frequently, yes, but hardly always. Laws and societal norms can easily be a problem unto themselves. Jim Crow laws, and the societal racism that created and justified them, were a very big problem. The laws of China, or the U.S.S.R., were a major societal problem even when they are being followed. There is no possible way you

That's all most protesting these days really is. No one is impressed if you can gather up a few tens of thousands of people with no jobs to stand around and chant. All that proves is that daytime TV is awful. That doesn't mean it can't be influential (or at least noticed), just that you're going to have to do a little more than call a meeting of a bunch of whiners to make your point.

Protesting was done better and more constructively in the past. If people want to make a statement there needs to be somet

Nah, what it comes down to is that too many people take offense at things that do not directly or in many cases indirectly affect them. They just want the attention and its easy to jump on a popular bandwagon because they then feel they belong and see other people agreeing with them.

that and it is whole lot easier than fixing their own lives. why not represent all the problems as being caused by someone else, then you can righteously stand by and not do anyt

Then what about trolling and people who are deliberately spreading disinformation? If there are too many of them, then fighting each and every anonymous poster is going to waste a lot of time. Time that could have been used for more useful activities instead.

Why do we believe anything people write on the internet to begin with? How many fiction authors write under assumed names?

Why do we assume the bullshit detector only gets turned on from "known false" sources. It should always be on, even when watching the nightly news.

Fact doesn't come from people, fact comes from inanimate objects. There is value in what people write, it's just not about gaining information. Sometimes even a frothy AC has a unique perspective on something. It may be justified with total tr

Combine "No Consequences" with human nature, and you'd be an idiot to expect anything different. Just wait until someone invents PFP/IP (poo flinging protocol/internet protocol), and you'll REALLY see what humans are capable of.

Whenever I get an angry work-related email I immediately get on the phone to the person. It is amazing the difference when speaking on the phone, often the person will very quickly become quite apologetic for their email when you phone them.

Yeah it's really ridiculous how some people act. I've noticed racism is a real biggie for gamers. I think most people out there mean well, but it seems that sometimes this stuff can have a snowball effect...one person says something, then another. I say try to cut it off at the source so when somebody says something really ignorant, just be like "dude that's not cool"

A "snowball" is a term used to describe an affect of exponential increase, not a person.

Snowball was a character in Clerks - The opening plot point to a rather uncomfortable scene. I find it distasteful (pun intended) that you feel the need to bring him up here. However if you were instead referring to the Trotsky-pig from Animal Farm you are entirely forgiven - That is a fine example of a large group turning on their victim due to mob mentality and a malicious leader acting as a catalyst.

Another way to look at it is through the lens of anonymity. In online gaming there is no way to tell if your opponents and team members are disabled, deaf, a different race, gender, or anything. This means that racial, sexual, gender and all the other base insults lose a lot of their effectiveness. This doesn't mean that a gay person who happens to be called a fag online wouldn't be offended by that, but they would (hopefully) realize that absent specific know

When you say something in anger in meatspace, people hold you accountable and may consider what you say as threatening, and there can be consequences, especially in the workspace. Also, people want an audience, and when they're really pissed off they want everyone to know about it. This stuff can be healthy. Of course there are other people where the anger grows inside them and they just post snide remarks and try to piss on peoples' parades and ruin people's days, these people feed their anger and become bitter. It's all about why you're doing it and if you're trying to get rid of some angry feelings and vent, or if you're festering.

WTF? Do we need to put an E (or I) in front of every-bloody-thing that might occur online? I mean really? There is no difference between 'aggression' and 'e-aggression' except for where it happens. I mean, if I get pissed off about something in the loo, is that 'P-aggression'? Or if I'm pissed at a strip club is that 'DD-aggression'?

I know most wont rtfa but my god the examples they use are hillariously bad. I was expecting whole sentences constructed out of *s+ 3 or 4 letters but no. It was talking about how celebrities had a flamewar or two online or one politician used a racial slur and surprise surprise, it got reported online.

the only decent example was the myspace girl who commited suicide, meagan.

im not sure i want to listen to a major news corp that cant even find decent examples of anon hate online. i mean jesus christ, just pick any slashdot and browse at -1!

The problem with written communication (esp. where the language used is learned later, not one's native language) is that it misses out all the nuances that come from speech. As such, people's forum, email, web, blog entries are often considered rude - when in reality they are just being economical with words, or do not have the vocabulary or cultural background to "hook up" with the reader.

As we all become more experienced with written internet communication, hopefully we'll all become more forgiving of

For the most part online, I find people to be fairly polite if not a little more crude or pointed than they would be in real life. On message boards, chat rooms, even places like FARK - there are always rules and people bend the boundaries to breaking but the die-hard bigots are truly a dying breed. Then again, maybe it's just a matter of all out flame wars and such being ended by admins and such before they really get started anymore.

But even in something as simple as yahoo hearts, I have found the most bigoted, racist, discriminatory people you ever want to meet. I mean one day, the host of table playing Yahoo Graffiti was booting anyone that had a brown person icon. Or in Yahoo hearts people are quick to use the n-word and such.

However by the same token, I have never encountered racism playing Yahoo Literati. And I find it speaks volumes that people who would play a game that that is related to words and depth of vocabulary and knowledge would be the very people to be the kindest and most interesting people I've encountered online.

I wholeheartedly believe that there is direct relationship between IQ and the level of every day bigotry and racism expressed by any given individual. I believe the same co-relation between those who are rich and/or powerful as this does not necessarily relate to intelligence - or that those who are rich, powerful and intelligent use tools such as racism and bigotry to manipulate those who are none of those things.

I guess I always wonder - what truly is the point of being a bigot or racist? Oh well....more observations that really any information here.

The same goes for road rage. You would never run down the hallway at work, while on your cell phone, yelling at all the other people who are not full out sprinting. But you sure would on your way there in the morning.

But they would never cut right in front of you and slow down so much as to impede your progress while another person walked at a similar speed blocking the rest of the hallway. And at worse, if they did this (for instance, standing in a doorway) a mere "excuse me" would let you by to continue on faster.

It's precisely because the roadway doesn't mirror the hallway that people get so frustrated. I have seen some pretty nasty episodes in the lines at Costco.

I have found that most people will not state their opinions if they are forced to sign them. The consequences of a opinion can be far more severe than is justified from those in power. Too often those in power, abuse power. Which side you are on, does not matter, both side have a fringe that goes off the deep end. For a few examples, see Nixon, J. Edgar Hoover, College Faculty (tenure granting is power). Ben Franklin had to use a pseudo-name so he would not be arrested. Writers during the witch hunts of the McCarthy era. Women writers had to pretend to be men to get published.

Anonymous is very useful! If you use is wisely! Put forth your arguments clearly and logically. Stir the emotions only as needed. Leave the hate behind. Leave the anger behind.

The BBC Have Your Say debates are evidence that this phenomenon is not confined to angry teenagers. Those guys seem to be able to spew bile about everything in the name of honest dissent or political protest. It's actually pretty sad.

They also forced Russel Brand to resign from Radio 2, even though only 2 people actually complained about his obscene phone calls:

The politest, friendliest, most trustworthy forum I belong to forces you to register with your real name. As it's linked to a commerce system, I imagine they can double-check it with the credit details they have on file for me. I know a lot of people would hate this, but I love it - everyone on there thinks very carefully before posting.

I guess anonymity makes doing a age demographics on anger difficult. But I wonder if rage is more prevalent for pubescent teens looking for an avenue to vent than any other group and whether they would "grow" out of it.

Most people are jerks online because it won't get them a punch in the face. 99% of the crap people say to you would never get said in person, because it'll likely result in an ass kicking. Literally 0% of the things I've been called have never been said towards me in person.

And I don't need a study to tell me that. I learned that 10 years ago when the rudest people online wouldn't even reveal their IP address - yet alone their real identity. I went from

Most people in America are angrier than usual due to the worsening economic conditions caused by Bush's oil war which bankrupted the nation. That's what's really being reflected on the web. Bush and Cheney are basically war criminials. I'm hoping people take it their rage at the voting booths.

Oooh, mad libs!

Most people in America are sillier than usual due to the diabetes caused by Bush's evil, putrid, orphan-exploiting existence which caffeinated the nation. That's what's really being monkeyed on the web. Bush and Cheney are basically evil, putrid, orphan-exploiters. I'm hoping people take it their rage at the carnival.